Category Archives: apple

VMAX And VMIN Poised To Be Most Important VIX ETP Launch In Years

REX Shares is launching two new VIX exchange-traded products on Tuesday (5/3/16) in what is likely to be the most important VIX ETP launch in several years. The REX VolMAXX Long VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF (VMAX) is the long volatility product, while the REX VolMAXX Inverse VIX Weekly Futures Strategy ETF (VMIN) is the short volatility sibling. The launch of these two products comes at a time when the VIX ETP space had become stale and had frustrated investors who have sought out products for both long and short volatility strategies when Every Single VIX ETP (Long and Short) Lost Money in 2015 . After a flurry of innovation in the VIX ETP space from 2009 to 2011, new product offerings have slowed to a trickle over the course of the past few years, with only the mystifying AccuShares Spot CBOE VIX Up Shares ETF (NASDAQ: VXUP ) and Down Class Shares ETF (NASDAQ: VXDN ) products making it out of the gate last year in a highly-anticipated May 18th launch that pivoted quickly from excitement to befuddlement, as investors were overwhelmed by the complexities associated with the seemingly endless flow of regular distributions, special distributions and corrective distributions. VIX aficionados know that 2015 was also notable in that it marked the launch by the CBOE of VIX weekly futures on July 23rd and VIX weekly options on October 8th. Both product launches were successful and it was just a matter of time before the new VIX weekly futures provided the foundation for a VIX ETP that was based on those futures. While details are sketchy regarding VMAX and VMIN, they will be holding VIX weekly futures and will target a weighted-average VIX futures maturity that is less than thirty days. These ETFs will be actively managed and it is likely that they will not have a fixed target maturity. Theoretically, the target maturity could vary anywhere from five days to 29 days, though given the holdings and the “max” and “min” embedded in the ticker symbol, I would anticipate an aggressive target maturity on the order of 7-14 calendar days. Whatever the target maturity, VMAX will be competing with the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (NYSEARCA: VXX ) right from the outset, while VMIN will find itself up against the likes of the VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Short-Term ETN (NASDAQ: XIV ). The competition trades approximately 100 million shares each day and is certainly vulnerable to new products that have a higher beta and should more closely track the spot/cash VIX on a daily basis. Depending upon the target maturity of VMAX and VMIN, I would not be surprised if these products have 50% more beta than VXX and XIV. For this reason, I would be shocked if, at the very minimum, VMAX and VMIN do not become darlings of the day-trading crowd – a forecast not unlike the one I made on November 14, 2008 in Prediction: Direxion Triple ETFs Will Revolutionize Day Trading . Frankly, this space has been relatively inactive as of late and with VMAX and VMIN, I now have the perfect opportunity to dust off the cobwebs and spit out the analysis and opinions that once came in such machine-gun rapidity that readers came up some far-reaching possible explanations for why I was so prolific . So…consider me back. I’m rested, hungry and ready for some new – and old – subjects to tackle. Disclosure(s): net short VXX and net long XIV at time of writing; CBOE is an advertiser on VIX and More

Are Alternative Mutual Funds Eating From The CTA Pie?

It seems like everywhere you look, you see a chart showing the upward AUM growth of liquid mutual funds, as well as the number of new funds. These charts left us with one main lingering question that we think is on the mind of many in the Managed Futures space. How big is the Liquid Mutual fund compared to the rest of the industry? And is that growth in addition to, or at the expense of, the rest of the industry? We explored this question in the latest article featured in CTA Intelligence , seen below. Are alt mutuals eating from the CTA pie? There’s no doubt that the packaging of managed futures into liquid mutual funds (’40 Acts’ as they’re called in the biz) has changed the managed futures space forever. It just depends which side of this particular aisle you’re on whether you view that as a good or bad change. On one hand, you can argue the $11bn AQR which has been brought into the space is good for the industry (in a sort of rising tide lifts all boats argument). On the other hand, there were the snickers and jeers in the audience at last year’s managed futures Pinnacle Awards when Cliff Asness won a lifetime achievement award. Many said he should have won the lifetime damage award for undercutting everyone on fees and essentially switching $11bn in money from 2/20 to 125bps). So which is it? Are managed futures mutual funds good for the industry as a whole? This may all seem like semantics, but it is surely important for those playing their particular brand of managed futures to investors. If mutuals are grabbing assets at the expense of others, then that’s surely not helpful to the grand majority of fund managers out there, not to mention the exchanges, brokerage firms, and the rest of the industry which need new money brought into the space to grow, not just the same money switching to mutual funds. Which brings us to the numbers. We gathered the data on the assets in managed futures mutual funds to trace the growth of the category since 2013. Then, we looked to compare that growth to the growth of managed futures as a whole from the BarclayHedge database. Now, a few details to consider: One, we made one big assumption, that all of the managed futures mutual fund AuM is included in the BarclayHedge CTA database, to make the math as simple as subtracting the ‘liquid AuM’ from the BarclayHedge AuM to arrive at the ‘non-liquid AuM’. Second, we subtracted Bridgewater’s AuM from the BarclayHedge numbers ( we don’t consider them to be managed futures ). And finally, we’re talking growth of assets here and sort of commingling that with inflows and outflows, as that term is known in the mutual fund world. Our methodology is considering the change in assets, so the growth or decline is both inflows/outflows and performance. As for what we would anticipate to see if there’s a rising tide effect, we would expect both curves to be up varying amounts. If there is ‘liquid’ growth at the expense of private funds, we would expect sort of mirror image curves, with private on the bottom and liquid on top. So what did we find – more of the mirrored look, albeit with private funds more mirrored than just mutual funds would explain – meaning they didn’t lose a dollar in assets for every one mutual funds brought in – they appear to have lost more. Going with BarclayHedge numbers, private funds lost around $40bn in assets through the middle of 2014 before pulling in around $20bn to end the period down roughly $19bn. Meanwhile, their liquid alt counterparts showed a slow but consistent growth of around $13bn over two years (amazingly, AQR was about $7.5bn of that amount according to Brightscope ). All in all, the managed futures mutual funds in the Morningstar managed futures mutual fund category outgrew private funds by $33bn. Click to enlarge This is interesting but it doesn’t completely answer the question we are after. Growth in assets are a good indicator of which vehicle investors are adding or subtracting from, but it doesn’t quite tell us how much of the industry is controlled by each type. Here’s a look at the percentage of managed futures assets controlled by mutual funds compared to the amount that is not. In 2013, our estimation of the total assets in managed futures through both private and liquid funds was about $206bn. The Morningstar category had around $9.6bn of that number, meaning 4.7% of the managed futures pie was controlled by mutual funds (cue pie chart): Click to enlarge Click to enlarge Fast forward to 2015, and we estimate managed futures overall actually went down in AuM by about $8.1bn to $198bn, while mutual funds grew by $13.9bn over the same time to a new high of $23.7bn, meaning managed futures mutual funds now represent 12% of the industry. The last two years have seen mutual funds share of the managed futures pie jump from 4.6% to 12%. That’s sort of impressive, but not as big of a jump as we might have thought before crunching the numbers. Perhaps, it’s important to apply context to what was going on during this growth. Managed futures was experiencing its worst drawdown in a generation throughout 2013 and the first half of 2014, then following it up by posting its best performance since 2008 in the second half of 2014.Grabbing a bigger slice of the pie with what’s generally considered ‘hotter’ money investing in mutual funds is certainly a feat. There’s no denying mutual funds are making up more of the managed futures space, but private funds still control There’s no denying mutual funds are making up more of the managed futures space, but private funds still control nine tenths of AuM – that’s a big number. The question is, what does the future trajectory look like? You would think mutual funds would continue making hay and taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie, and indeed more and more managers we talk to are asking when, not if, they should consider switching to a mutual fund format. But then there are reports that institutional investors are looking to increase their exposure to private funds in 2016. And last but not least, it’s not a wide open road ahead for liquid alts products with new SEC derivatives rules on the horizon , potentially meaning you would need millions of dollars to trade a single Euro Dollar future, effectively putting the managed futures mutual fund complex out of business. Stay tuned…this is one battle definitely worth watching